This thesis examines what a soldier's legal, ethical, and moral obligations are when he is ordered to surrender but still has the will and means to resist. The question pits two of the military's highest values against one another. The first is the imperative to obey orders of legally constituted commanders. The second is the military virtue of fighting the enemy as long as a soldier is able. Legal obligations are addressed at two levels beginning with International Law regarding capitulation agreements, followed by United States military law concerning discipline and obedience. The American military ethic is examined with emphasis on the Code of Conduct and its strong injunction against surrender. Finally, law and the military ethic are linked to personal moral values and the difficult decisions a soldier has to make when forced to choose between surrender and disobedience. A case study of the American surrender of the Philippines in 1942 is used to illustrate this complex dilemma. Diaries, letters, and other historical material were examined to weigh the actions of American soldiers in a legal, ethical and moral context. Additionally, a written questionnaire and personal interviews were conducted to solicit first person accounts of the decisions made regarding surrender. The study finds that the law, the military ethic, and personal moral values are likely to conflict when soldiers are ordered to surrender while they still have the means to resist. While no definitive solution is provided to this complex moral dilemma, the author provides several key factors that should be considered before a soldier chooses a course of action in this difficult situation.